The Boys

I almost avoided this because of its low ratings in some film guides, but decided at the last minute to watch. This film works very well because it presents events from two perspectives - first, from everyone who encounters the four boys (accused of robbery and murder) during their night out, and then, from the viewpoint of the boys themselves as they give evidence. This means that most scenes are filmed and presented twice, which works well in the context of a courtroom drama.

What works especially well though is that the film does not conclude in the way you might expect, which makes it strong and relevant even many years after capital penalties for murder, for example, have been removed. Good performances from leads and cameos both.

When I saw this film a couple of nights ago on late night TV I was struck by how much it captured the spirit of a time when I was a boy a little younger than 'The Boys' in the film

The Boys in question are four teenagers charged with murder of an elderly night watchman during a robbery.

Several social issues are 'on trial' Firstly, the generation gap. This was a time when 'teenagers' were a new concept in Britain (the four are described disparagingly by their elders as 'teddy boys'), and this perception his used by the defence to show that teenagers are harshly judged by their elders.

The four in question are rowdy and ill mannered enough but rather too well spoken for real working class teenagers (particularly teen idol of the day Jess Conrad). However their plight is gripping enough to hold the interest of the viewer.

In England in 1962 a) an 18 year old could hang for murder but not a younger accomplice (one of the most notorious incidents of the time was the hanging of 18 year old Derek Bentley - 1956 - while his younger accomplice who fired the fatal shot, could not be hanged) b) some types of murder - killing during a the commission of a crime - were capital, others not.

The film points up these anomalies and was making a serious social criticism at the time.

The film is a believable portrayal of poor lads on a night out that went disastrously wrong and has a nice little twist in the tail

Worth hanging about to see this one - 8 out of 10

The writings of Charles Dickens are known, apart from their obvious entertainment value, as chronicles of the times in which he lived highlighted by over-the-top characterizations and true-to-life environments. So it is with this movie.

I won't dwell on the plot - suffice it to say that it's presentation is sufficiently original to hold the viewer virtually spellbound in an emotional roller-coaster (big dipper to you Brits!) Rather, the value of this movie is the tantalizing peek it affords us to a Great Britain in general, and a London in particular, immediately pre-Beatles.

This movie is a "must see" for those who wish to visit or re-live the London of 1962! It's a gritty, no holds barred look at the time between Harold (You-never-had-it-so-good) Macmillan's nineteen fifties and the Swinging Sixties.

Having just directed Cliff Richard in 'The Young Ones' (in which Robert Morley had already lamented that youngsters those days routinely carried coshes and flick knives), director Sidney Furie continued to show the potential that would soon find full expression in 'The Ipcress File' adroitly juggling flashbacks and a wide screen crammed with familiar faces like Wilfred Brambell (already playing a seventy year-old) and youngsters like Tony Garnett (who later produced 'Cathy Come Home' with fellow cast member Carol White and died this year aged 83).

Made with the routine excellence of it's time taken for granted by critics of the day, but acclaimed in 2021 by Simon Heffer - of all people - as "not only a magnificent kitchen sink, but one of the finest films of the whole era". At the time the treatment seemed harshly contemporary but today seems charmingly old-fashioned; taking us back to an era when London was still pockmarked with bombsites, Surrey Quays was still called 'Surrey Docks', the local pictures was playing 'Hungry for Love', with Simone Signoret, girls wore beehives, lads shaved with safety razors and wore a jacket and tie for a night out. And the judge wore a black cap to pronounce that the miscreant in the dock was for the Eight O'Clock Walk.

A court case ensues when four youths are on trial for the murder of a man at a garage, and theft of monies.

The film is incredibly clever, the case is given for both prosecution and defense, with witness cross examined throughout. The film cleverly gives both sides of the argument, it asks the question 'can you judge a book by its cover?' Does the fact that someone looks a certain way mean that they'll behave in a certain way? It is such a clever film, one that makes you think and question all the way through.

Fantastic production values, and superb performance, Richard Todd was excellent, but the show stealer for me had to be Robert Morley, a commanding and charismatic performance, he was superb.

I was surprised by the level of quality here, 9/10